Idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis in the era of antifibrotic therapy: Searching for new opportunities grounded in evidence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) is a progressive and fatal lung disease that up to now has been associated with a poor prognosis. However, the results of the INPULSIS and ASCEND trials and the approval of nintedanib and pirfenidone have marked the beginning of a new era for IPF patients. Questions remain, however. Should these drugs be used earlier? What effect will they have on more severe disease? Will their effects last beyond the trial period? This manuscript is the outcome of a multidisciplinary meeting between pulmonology, radiology, and pathology clinicians on the use of antifibrotic agents in IPF. In our opinion, the existing data show that pirfenidone and nintedanib slow functional decline in early stages of disease. These drugs also appear to result in therapeutic benefits when administered to patients with advanced disease at diagnosis and maintain effective over time. The data also suggest that continuing antifibrotic therapy after disease progression may confer benefits, but more evidence is needed. Early diagnosis and treatment are crucial for reducing functional decline, slowing disease progression, and improving quality of life.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.021 | 0.050 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".